Chairman Prcela called the meeting to order reciting setback variance request for Parkledge Building Co., Case #2013-01. I can honestly say I believe this is the first ‘inch’ setback variance I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve been on the floor. I appreciate the attention to detail.

OATH

Chairman Prcela stated that anyone wishing to speak must be sworn in, administering the oath to the Board Members, Applicants, & Appellants and asked anyone wishing to speak to state their name and address for the record.

Scott Miller from Parkledge Building Company said all of our units on SOM Court were pre-approved in 2005. They all fit within the setbacks. There’s a 25’ setback from the front and all the garages have been set back another 10’. Because of the cul-de-sac radius, there’s a little nagging 20” encroachment of the garage over the garage setback of the 35’ from the street vs. the very front of the house which is 20’. It’s not a matter of the garage encroaching into the vision of the neighbor’s garage, it has no affect on them. We really can’t shift the house because we’re already to the back of the setback which is up against that brick office building. To get closer to that office building would be an issue for drainage. It’s a minor issue but I’m here because it exists. We respectfully request your consideration.

Chairman Prcela asked if anyone in the audience is an abutting neighbor or a resident who has any comment on this matter.

There were none.

Chairman Prcela opens up to Board discussion. In my opinion it is very small. I do concur with the applicant that it does not seem to impact visibility. Board concurs.

Mr. Marrelli states I have no problem with it. I think the configuration of the lot is peculiar against the configuration of the house where you can’t twist or turn it any other way to make this work.

DECISION:

Mr. Russ, seconded by Mr. Fikaris made a motion to approve the 20” front setback variance request set forth in Case #2013-01 for Parkledge Building Company at 6593 & 6589 SOM Court for garage placement.

ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Prcela, Mr. Fikaris, Mrs. Shatten, Mr. Caticchio, Mr. Russ

NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Variance Approved.

Right to Appeal

Chairman Prcela stated written notice will be mailed by the Building Department confirming the decision and any interested party has the right to appeal within 10 days.

CONSIDERATION OF CASE NUMBER: #2013-02

A request for a 22.56’ front yard setback variance from Section 1173.05 to allow for new building addition.

A request for a 59.64’ side yard setback variance from Section 1173.05 to allow for new building addition.

A request for a nine (9) parking space variance from Section 1183.05 to allow for new building addition.

A request for a 4’ 6” height variance from Section 1181.02 to allow for new building addition.

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS:

N. Commons Blvd: 290 – Altercare Rehab/300 – Progressive Ins Co.

SOM Ctr. Rd.: 294 SOM Ctr

White Rd.: 6488,6504,6516,6524

Chairman Prcela moves onto the next order of business reciting variance requests for Governor’s Village Assisted Living Case #2013-02. Let’s begin by having Governor’s Village team of representatives introduce themselves:

John Urbanick, Greenland Engineering

Ryan McNutt, CC Hodgson

Bill Briggs, Randall Residence

Joseph Latina, Greenland Engineering

George Gatta, CC Hodgson

Eileen Nacht, CC Hodgson

Michelle Gorman, Randall Residence

Greg Ryan, Altercare Rehab Facility

OATH

Chairman Prcela administered the oath to the Representatives.

Bill Briggs starts off by saying on behalf of Randall Residence I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to continue the process of this building. This building was originally built in ‘99’ and we always had the intention of having an addition put on. We’re happy to say we’re at that point to do that. We’ve been very thankful to have a very successful relationship with the Village over the last 13+ years. Originally when this master plan was put together with the addition, the Village had earmarked this front area knowing that this was going to happen in the future, at least it was our plan. We had preliminary approval of the plan & location as it exists on the plans now in Feb of 2013.

John Urbanick from Greenland Engineering opens up to any questions from an engineering standpoint.

Chairman Prcela states for the record we’ll be looking at Site Plan C-BZA.

Mr. Marrelli brings attention to the north side. This shaded area that now has a building on it, was earmarked with a dotted line for future addition in 1999/2000. We always knew if the project was successful, it would be added to. At that time we didn’t know if it would be 1-story or 2-story and we didn’t know the length or width. Going back to that, the north side is against the residences on White Rd. These residents were all notified of the variance requests tonight, that this building was going to be closer to that line than it is supposed to be. This building is pretty much in line with the one that’s already there. Noting on Google Earth, this is all trees. So this line is getting a little closer on the north side than the old one was. We never had an issue with this building being that close to the line. There were never any complaints from anybody. I don’t foresee this having any impact either.

Joseph Latina said the required side property setback for residential is 100 feet. The existing building already on this parcel has set the precedence.

Mr. Marrelli said the 100’ setback is usually taking into consideration houses are there. This is not the case, these people won’t even see this, not with that lot depth.

Chairman Prcela asked about the parcel the Village is selling to the applicant.

Joseph Latina pointed out the front 1.11 acre parcel of land Mayfield Village is selling to Governor’s Village.

Chairman Prcela states the precedence has been set on the parcel with the side yard setback. How about this front property line?

Mr. Marrelli refers to the medical buildings to be (East Commons) across the street which we gave variances to for the same reason. They came close to the front line. On both sides of the street, you’ve kind of squeezed the front setback on both sides. It’ll be uniform. As far as parking, our code requires so many spaces per suite. The residents aren’t driving cars.

Michelle Gorman said we’ve got staff & visitors which fills it up pretty quickly. But we don’t have any residents that drive at all. We reserve the front of the building where the carport is for visitors. There’s a small side area that staff uses. Then there’s the other side area going towards the Altercare entrance, we park there as well.

Bill Briggs said if we need additional spaces for future use, we have 30 spaces land banked.

Mr. Fikaris asked the max number of employees per shift at any one time.

Michelle Gorman replied 12 – 15.

John Urbanick states having those 30 land banked spaces will create some flexibility. If there was any hindrance to the operation, that would not be their problem, it would be ours. If there were an issue we have the flexibility to deal with it. We’ve had ten years plus of evaluation.

Mr. Caticchio asked if there’s a detention basin on this parcel.

Bill Briggs replied when we originally purchased the property, we kept the wetlands here.

Bill Briggs said as far as the sale of property to us from M.V., we’re just waiting to close. It’s so isolated there. If we did anything in the future, it’d be more landscaping / parkland.

John Urbanick said there was a reason the original site was laid out the way it was. In 1999 we could only disturb so much acreage to satisfy the Core requirements. The reason we have a conservation easement was because of our dealing with the Court. The front section for whatever reason wasn’t required to go into the conservation easement, but we did lay out the site based on not touching that because it was not advantageous for us to develop that driveway.

Chairman Prcela said the last item is the height.

Change in Height Variance Request

Ryan McNutt said we met with the Architectural Review Board last week. They recommended we bring the roof line down a bit. They wanted to see a 5 / 12 pitch. That gets us down to 36’ 2”. Now our variance request is only 1’ 2”. We are sympathetic to all the ARB comments received. I wish to withdraw the variance request of 4’ 6” and ask for a 1’ 2” height variance.

Mr. Marrelli said that other 3’ made the roof look really massive. Ryan agreed.

Hardship vs. Practical Difficulty

Mr. Caticchio asked a legal question. Under the zoning code in order to grant a variance, there has to be either a hardship or practical difficulty. Can anyone tell me what your hardships are or your practical difficulties? Not difficulties because of financing or lack of space.

Joseph Latina replied the hardship in part is the parking. With StormWater being such a big deal right now, we don’t want to create any more hard space than what’s being used.

Chairman Prcela asked if they even need a parking variance with the land banked spaces.

Mr. Marrelli said yes.

Mr. Caticchio said the hardship or practical difficulty has to be related to the land on which the building is going to be built. For example if there was a ravine running through the center of that building.

Ryan McNutt said part of it is dictated by the site itself, the wetlands. That restricts us in which zones we can build in. That’s partly for the north side variance against the line. We’re trying to be respectful of the land that’s there and keep everything to the north end of the site.

Bill Briggs said also we wanted to minimize the mass of the building out at the road.

Mr. Caticchio said I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m just trying to show you what the law really is. Our zoning code specifically states hardship or practical difficulty, to tell you the truth, I don’t see neither here. It would be simple enough just to cut a few feet off of the building to the side.

Mr. Marrelli said if you built to the letter of the law and the setbacks, you’d have basically 10 rooms, this would be gone, etc. Following the required setbacks makes this lot unbuildable at this point.

Mr. Caticchio said that’s a financial issue. Either you can make the building smaller or not build it at all.

John Urbanick said based on the precedence that was set with the prior variances granted, it was determined I’m guessing based on that decision that a hardship existed to grant the side yard setback, because otherwise developing that parcel would not have been possible.

Mr. Caticchio said that’s a financial issue.

John Urbanick said there’s also an issue of a property owner has the right to develop the parcel. That’s often times where the hardship comes into place. The right to develop the parcel becomes limited due to unique circumstances based on setbacks.

Mr. Caticchio said unique circumstances would have to apply to the configuration of the land. Like I’ve said, if you have a creek running through the middle and you want it filled in. Variances would be granted under those circumstances.

John Urbanick asked, is a 150’ wide lot with a 100’ side yard setback a unique condition?

Mr. Caticchio said that’s not…..

John Urbanick interjects. This is a similar condition to a physical feature that someone else created. This is a limitation that was created by an ordinance. Ordinances try to cover all types of parcels across the board within the zoning district but there are unique situations such as this where a side yard setback from residential zoning districts creates the situation within this development. That was the case that was made the first time this went around.

Mr. Caticchio said it was never before the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Marrelli clarifies that it was, the first time through.

Mr. Caticchio asked, then why are they back if this was already granted?

Mr. Marrelli replied because the building wasn’t set on the property yet, just a dotted line for future development.

John Urbanick said John correct me if I’m wrong. Even if we came back to the exact same setback, because it’s the same part of the building, we’d still have to be here. Whether we’ve encroached a little farther from what was before, we’d still have to be at this Board much like we were back in 1999. I guess my take is the hardship exists because the setback limits practical development of the property which the Boards job is to determine whether or not what’s being requested, what is the level of hardship and whether what’s being requested is deemed acceptable by this Board. The hardship clearly is based on the setback for a lot that’s a lot narrower.

Mr. Caticchio said a lot of variances that come before us do that in variation. You want to build a house on a lot that’s 100’ deep, you want to build a house that’s 90’ long? The point is that I don’t see a hardship or practical difficulty here. With that being said, class is dismissed.

Bill Briggs responds. It may or may not make any sense to you Pat. You may think of it as a mute point. If we hadn’t set this wetlands aside as it is, we would have had plenty of room to work within the boundaries of this. True, there’s no creek running right through the middle but when we originally purchased this property, we purchased the whole property. What was here, has restricted us to what we can do here, and the same with this. There are site issues that have I would think that are creating a hardship with this here. Might not be a creek, but it’s a whole 1/3 of the property in the back that has kept us from laying it out in a more appropriate way.

Mr. Marrelli comments. Your buildable area according to code being 40, 50% has been taken away by the conservation and the wetlands. You have to kind of stretch things where ever you can. I don’t know if that’s a topographical hardship but I would think it is if the code allows a certain percentage of building area and they can’t do it because of that.

Chairman Prcela said I also know this development worked very closely with the Village putting the conservation easement in place. I believe we’ve already set the precedence on the side yard setback. I don’t think that granting an additional side yard setback (providing it wouldn’t be in the fire lane), would be a problem. The height when it was for a 4’ 6” variance, I thought was a lot. I’d have an issue with that. The front encroachment I’d defer to John and ask if it’s similar to the variances that we granted to the development across the street.

Mr. Marrelli said yes it’s similar. We kind of have bookends now. Nothing else is anywhere near that street.

Bill Briggs said when I originally presented, I presented two different options to David Hartt, one of the Village’s representatives. In our discussions he started talking about what was happening across the street. I said I did have this other plan, it encroached some, it would really help us out, but I wasn’t going to present it. He asked to see it. After looking at that and knowing what had been approved across the site, he said he thought I should present this one because he thought it would help balance out the sides. That’s one of the main reasons why I pursued it to begin with, it was from his direction.

Chairman Prcela said so time was engaged by our Planning Director David Hartt and he’s in full support of this. How about ARB and P & Z?

Mr. Marrelli replied ARB doesn’t have issue with any of the setbacks. They did want the roof lowered, and that’s been done. Thursday it goes to Planning Commission. It was pre-introduced to the Commission back in February. Now there’s more detail as far as configuration, how the lot’s being used for parking, landscaping, lighting.

Chairman Prcela said Paul Fikaris is our P & Z representative. Were you o.k. with the parking and setback discussions in Feb?

Mr. Fikaris replied most people agreed it would work.

Mr. Marrelli said back in Feb the Planning Commission looked at it more as an introductory meeting that they need to build this property and this is the configuration. If the Commission was against it, we wouldn’t be sitting here now. Planning Commission’s thoughts were the Village and our residents need it. A lot of our residents live there now. They’ve moved from their houses and are close to home and their kids.

Michelle Gorman confirmed a large percentage of people served are from Mayfield Village, Mayfield & Lyndhurst. We’re close to the Hospitals, we’re full and always have a waiting list.

Chairman Prcela asked for Board Members comments.

Mr. Fikaris said I always respect Pat’s viewpoint. He brings this most important item up. I think in this case and many cases I personally consider the overall concept and overall intent. Although none of the factors that I come up with would constitute a true hardship, I would believe that this wouldn’t be in existence. The first things I’ve learned to think about in Board of Appeals is a hardship or practical difficulty. I think in this case, this works and I’d be in favor of it.

Mr. Russ concurs.

Chairman Prcela said I think by virtue of the fact that this side yard setback was previously approved, I feel comfortable with these variances. There’s already been a precedence set on this particular parcel. Mr. Marrelli has indicated directly across the street similar variances were granted by this Board. The height I had a little bit of an issue with, but after talking to ARB Chairman Dinardo, now that it is being brought down, it will not be visible to the naked eye. As Michelle stated, there’s definitely a demand for our residents to have. That’s my position.

Chairman Prcela asked if any further questions or comments from the Board or the floor. There were none.

DECISION:

1. Front Yard Setback Variance

Mrs. Shatten, seconded by Mr. Russ made a motion to approve the 22.56’ front yard setback variance request set forth in Case #2013-02 for Governor’s Village Assisted Living at 280 NCB to allow for new building addition.

Mrs. Shatten, seconded by Mr. Russ made a motion to approve the 59.64’ side yard setback variance request set forth in Case #2013-02 for Governor’s Village Assisted Living at 280 NCB to allow for new building addition.

ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Prcela, Mr. Fikaris, Mrs. Shatten, Mr. Caticchio, Mr. Russ

NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Variance Approved.

3. Parking Space Variance

Mr. Russ, seconded by Mrs. Shatten made a motion to approve the nine (9) parking space variance request set forth in Case #2013-02 for Governor’s Village Assisted Living at 280 NCB to allow for new building addition.

ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Prcela, Mr. Fikaris, Mrs. Shatten, Mr. Caticchio, Mr. Russ

NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Variance Approved.

4. Height Variance

NOTE: Chairman Prcela states the 4’ 6” height variance has been stricken. The applicant has come back requesting a 1’ 2” height variance.

Mr. Russ, seconded by Mrs. Shatten made a motion to approve the 1’ 2” height variance request set forth in Case #2013-02 for Governor’s Village Assisted Living at 280 NCB to allow for new building addition.

ROLL CALL

AYES: Mr. Prcela, Mr. Fikaris, Mrs. Shatten, Mr. Caticchio, Mr. Russ

NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Variance Approved.

Right to Appeal

Chairman Prcela stated written notice will be mailed by the Building Department confirming the decision and any interested party has the right to appeal within 10 days.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Fikaris, seconded by Mr. Russ made a motion to adjourn the meeting.